Hardwick v. US, et al

Filing 397

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 392 Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2021)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TILLIE HARDWICK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9

Case No. 79-cv-01710-EMC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants.

Docket No. 392

12
13
14
15

Following this Court’s Order granting a motion by the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk

16

Indians (“the Tribe”) to require the United States to take restored lands into trust pursuant to the

17

1983 Stipulated Judgment (Docket No. 364), the Tribe now moves for sanctions, arguing that the

18

Government’s refusal to take the Tribe’s land into trust for years, until this Court ordered it, is

19

sanctionable under the Court’s inherent powers. Docket No. 392. As stated at the hearing, the

20

Court DENIES the motion but schedules a status conference to ensure compliance with the

21

Court’s order granting the Motion to Enforce.

22
23
24
25

I.

BACKGROUND

The Tribe previously attempted to convey the Rancheria to the BIA under the mandatory
provision of Paragraph 8 on two separate occasions, in 1996 and 2010.
On July 30, 1996, the Tribe’s then-principal spokesperson (Ms. Donna Marie Potts)

26

exercised the mandatory trust election provision under paragraph 8 of the 1983 Judgment,

27

executing and recording a grant deed to the United States. Mot. to Enforce Judgment (Docket No.

28

364) at 16; Pope Decl. (Docket No. 364-1) ¶ 4. The BIA returned the trust application, citing the

1

need for the Tribe to comply with the BIA’s discretionary fee-to-trust procedures described at 25

2

C.F.R. Part 151. Pope Decl. ¶ 5; Refusal Letter, Docket No. 364-1 Ex. 4.

3

On July 7, 2010, the Tribe met with the BIA Sacramento Regional Office and made an in-

4

person request that BIA restore the Rancheria lands to trust status pursuant to the 1983 Judgment.

5

Pope Decl. ¶ 16. The Tribe alleges that BIA officials agreed that the conveyance of the Rancheria

6

to the Government was mandatory but expressed reservations about expending political capital.

7

Mot. at 3-4. In 2018, BIA denied the request. Pope Decl. ¶ 45. The Tribe appealed the decision

8

to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (“IBIA”). Pope Decl. ¶ 46. On April 18, 2019, the BIA

9

Regional Solicitor remanded the matter back to the BIA. On October 23, 2020, while the motion
before this Court was pending, the BIA reached a final decision, holding that the Tribe’s

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

conveyance was governed by paragraph 7 of the 1983 Stipulated Judgment, and that BIA therefore

12

lacked the authority to acquire the Rancheria through the mandatory trust acquisition provision of

13

paragraph 8. BIA Decision Letter, Docket No. 388-1 at 5-7.
II.

14
15

A.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard for the Court’s Inherent Sanctions Authority

16

“Three primary sources of authority enable courts to sanction parties or their lawyers for

17

improper conduct: (1) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which applies to signed writings filed

18

with the court, (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which is aimed at penalizing conduct that unreasonably and

19

vexatiously multiplies the proceedings, and (3) the court’s inherent power.” Fink v. Gomez, 239

20

F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, the Tribe bases its motion only on the Court’s inherent power

21

to impose sanctions. See Mot. at 2-3.

22

With respect to the Court’s inherent sanctions power, “a court may assess attorney’s fees

23

as a sanction for the willful disobedience of a court order … [and] when a party has acted in bad

24

faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32,

25

45-46, 111 S. Ct. 2123, 2133 (1991); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001). A party

26

acts in bad faith “by delaying or disrupting the litigation or by hampering enforcement of a court

27

order.” Chambers, 501 U.S. at 46. However, Chambers also cautions that “[a] court must …

28

exercise caution in invoking its inherent power, and it must comply with the mandates of due
2

1

process, both in determining that the requisite bad faith exists and in assessing fees.” Id. at 50.
Bad faith requires willful conduct or conduct tantamount thereto. The Ninth Circuit has

2
3

held that:
“mere recklessness, without more, does not justify sanctions under a
court's inherent power. But … sanctions are available if the court
specifically finds bad faith or conduct tantamount to bad faith.
Sanctions are available for a variety of types of willful actions,
including recklessness when combined with an additional factor
such as frivolousness, harassment, or an improper purpose.
Therefore, we hold that an attorney’s reckless misstatements of law
and fact, when coupled with an improper purpose, such as an
attempt to influence or manipulate proceedings in one case in order
to gain tactical advantage in another case, are sanctionable under a
court's inherent power.”

4
5
6
7
8
9

Fink, 239 F.3d at 993-94. Cf. B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dep’t, 276 F.3d 1091, 1108 (9th Cir. 2002)

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

(attorney’s knowing and reckless introduction of inadmissible evidence was “tantamount to bad

12

faith and therefore sanctionable under the court's inherent power”).

13

B.

The Government’s Conduct Under the Fink Standard

14

Applying Fink, the Court finds that the Government’s conduct is not sanctionable under its

15

inherent power. At the motion hearing, the Tribe stated that the Government acted in bad faith by

16

consistently delaying its response to the Tribe’s request to convey the Buena Vista Rancheria into

17

trust as a mandatory acquisition. This argument is based on the ten-year delay between the Tribe’s

18

attempted conveyance in 2010 and the decision letter which the Tribe received in 2020, which

19

denied the Tribe’s request to take the Buena Vista Rancheria into trust as a mandatory acquisition

20

and instructed the Tribe to proceed through the discretionary process. Docket No. 388.

21

However, the Government’s official position (that it had no mandatory duty to take the

22

Rancheria into trust) has been consistent. The Tribe has to show that the Government has made

23

“reckless misstatements of law and fact” in so interpreting the 1983 Stipulated Judgment. Fink,

24

239 F.3d at 993-94. While the Court disagreed with the Government’s interpretation of the 1983

25

Judgment, it cannot say that its position was without legal basis or frivolous. As the Government

26

noted in its Opposition to the Tribe’s Motion for Sanctions, its interpretation of the 1983 Judgment

27

was grounded in the IBIA’s holding in Santana that “[i]f community-owned lands could be

28

transferred into individual ownership at any time, with BIA being required to treat those lands as
3

1

then falling under paragraph 8 of the stipulated judgment, paragraph 7 would be rendered a

2

nullity.” Santana v. Sacramento Area Director, 33 IBIA 135, 1999 I.D. LEXIS 10, *19. While the

3

Court found the Government’s reasoning unpersuasive, it cannot say that this argument was

4

entirely without reason.

5

In its ruling, this Court had to interpret the 1983 Judgment to determine that the Tribe was

6

a “successor in interest” as defined in Paragraph 2 and a “class member” under Paragraph 8. The

7

Court cannot say that the Government’s argument to the contrary was a reckless misstatement of

8

facts or the law. The Government’s interpretation was not only on Santana, but also in part on a

9

2004 Order by Judge Fogel and1987 Stipulated Judgments approved by Judge Williams (who also
approved the 1983 Judgment). See Order by Judge Jeremy D. Fogel Denying Motion for

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Reconsideration, Docket No. 296 at 3 (interpreting the 1987 Stipulated Judgments to find that the

12

Picayune Rancheria could not be considered a “successor-in-interest” because the “original

13

distributees [who received the land pursuant to the California Rancheria Act of 1958] sold the six

14

parcels in question to non-Indians, and the Tribe was able to purchase those parcels back between

15

1995 and 2002”). Because the Government has had a consistent, non-frivolous interpretation of

16

the 1983 Judgment, which was based on IBIA precedent and prior orders from this Court

17

concerning the term “successor in interest” in paragraph 2, the Court does not find that the

18

Government’s conduct is sanctionable under Fink.
III.

19

CONCLUSION

The Court therefore DENIES the Tribe’s Motion for Sanctions. However, the Court

20
21

schedules a status conference for February 18, 2021 in order to receive an update on the

22

Government’s compliance with the Court’s order granting the Tribe’s motion to enforce the 1983

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
4

1

Stipulated Judgment. The Government is directed to provide a timeline by February 11, 2021,

2

providing an exact date for when it expects to take the Buena Vista Rancheria into trust as a

3

mandatory acquisition.

4

This order disposes of Docket No. 392.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: January 25, 2021

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5